In two thousand years when someone finds one of our museums buried deep in the dirt and they start dating the finds inside will they believe it is a
hoax because there are so many different dates to the items?

I am sure that ancient man collected artifacts just like we do and probably had a place to keep them...

I think that the main reason that this case is generally thought to be a hoax is because of the varying ages of the artifacts found. The artifacts
themselves however appear to be authentic (at least IMO) and some of them have be tested.

Glass found at Glozel was dated spectrographically in the 1920s, and again in the 1990s at the SLOWPOKE reactor at the University of Toronto by
neutron activation analysis. Both analyses place the glass fragments in the medieval period. Alice and Sam Gerard together with Robert Liris in 1995
managed to have two bone tubes found in Tomb II C-14 dated at the AMS C-14 laboratory at the University of Arizona, finding a 13th century date.

Thermoluminescence dating of Glozel pottery in 1974 confirmed that the pottery was not produced recently. By 1979, 39 TL dates on 27 artifacts
separated the artifacts into three groups: the first between 300 BC and 300 AD (Celtic and Roman Gaul), the second medieval, centered on the 13th
century, and the third recent. TL datings of 1983 performed in Oxford range from the 4th century to the medieval period.

Carbon-14 datings of bone fragments range from the 13th to the 20th century. Three C-14 analyses performed in Oxford in 1984 dated a piece of charcoal
to the 11th to 13th century, and a fragment of an ivory ring to the 15th century. A human femur was dated to the 5th century. Some archaeologists
dated the rune stones on a fantastic age (about 8000 BC). This was displayed by experts such as Dr. Lois Capitan as clumsy forgery. The reason is that
ca. 8000 BC no meaningful civilization could have existed

My thought is that if this was not created to be a hoax, it could have been a collection of artifacts that were stashed there long ago.

I think that this quote below is not very logical thinking. You don't have to have a "meaningful" civilization to create the artifacts in question.

Some archaeologists dated the rune stones on a fantastic age (about 8000 BC). This was displayed by experts such as Dr. Lois Capitan as clumsy
forgery. The reason is that ca. 8000 BC no meaningful civilization could have existed

edit on 11-3-2013 by isyeye because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-3-2013 by isyeye because: (no reason given)

Here's an interesting idea, if the objects where all from diffeent time periods...who's to say thatwhere they where found was maybe just a storehouse
for holding findings made by a MEDIAEVAL ARCHEOLOGIST? hmmmm.... whenever something like this crops up, and it does quite often, basicaly has
archeologists and scholars scratching there heads and stating that its a hoax s its not exclusive to that area or time period, and i wonder, are these
scholars really that narrow minded to think that the study of ancient artefacts only came about in this day and age? They are obviously removable
objects, ergo.... they could have been brought together in one place from different time periods by an earlier, ancient scholar,who was maybe a
precursor to modern archeology/paleontology.... you all catch my drift peeps?

PEACE OUT!!

EDIT:- to add that SAKRATERI beat me to it in the post just above this one, he basicaly said in not so many words exactly what I was trying to get
across......go figure!!

S&F. I read a few articles on these in other places on the net. I don't remember seeing them here although they could have been posted within a
thread somewhere. They are interesting artifacts. I'll have to see what others say about them here in this thread. Can't understand why no flag?
Maybe I already did.

The artifacts were probably from an ancient collector. Someone brought them from Europe. I feel they may have been used as trade artifacts long
ago.

Initially, many experts argued in favor of a hoax, but advanced testing from later decades confirmed that many of the Glozel artifacts were
most likely of genuine antiquity.

Wikipedia is uaully skeptical and usually overlooks evidence because of that, so to see them say that above is a pretty bold statement.

Wikipedia is under no central editing authority and for most subjects anyone can edit a contribution. It does however usually require evidence for
something before stating it is true.

From the same source

Glass found at Glozel was dated spectrographically in the 1920s, and again in the 1990s at the SLOWPOKE reactor at the University of Toronto by
neutron activation analysis. Both analyses place the glass fragments in the medieval period. Alice and Sam Gerard together with Robert Liris in 1995
managed to have two bone tubes found in Tomb II C-14 dated at the AMS C-14 laboratory at the University of Arizona, finding a 13th-century date.

Thermoluminescence dating of Glozel pottery in 1974 confirmed that the pottery was not produced recently. By 1979, 39 TL dates on 27 artifacts
separated the artifacts into three groups: the first between 300 BC and 300 AD (Celtic and Roman Gaul), the second medieval, centered on the 13th
century, and the third recent. TL datings of 1983 performed in Oxford range from the 4th century to the medieval period.

Carbon-14 datings of bone fragments range from the 13th to the 20th century. Three C-14 analyses performed in Oxford in 1984 dated a piece of charcoal
to the 11th to 13th century, and a fragment of an ivory ring to the 15th century. A human femur was dated to the 5th century. Some archaeologists
dated the rune stones on a fantastic age (about 8000 BC). This was displayed by experts such as Dr. Lois Capitan as clumsy forgery.

Hanslune
It does however usually require evidence for something before stating it is true.

Oh yeah, but for things that happen in history in which do not have much evidence, it is important not to be a complete skeptic. Because if you are a
skeptic than you are going to miss the one or two things which are actually true. Believing somebody's lie a few times and being able to perceive
the truth of one thing is better than to just not believe in all things just because you know they are all not true.

An example of this thread, the Glozel writing itself mimics the lost Atlantis writing of South America, so to have that writing in two parts of the
world just adds on to the overall Atlantis theory, which in the mind of a skeptic is so little because they have not looked into the existing
evidence, turning away from it before they dig into it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.